Montreal Mirror published a letter to the Editor in this weeks edition. If you feel strongly againest what the Sex coloum wrote about, please make yourself heard at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was appalled to read last week’s advice column by Sasha in which she responds to a request for advice by a writer who desires to have sex with a dog [“Doing the dog,” June 30]. Rather than explaining to the writer, and readers of her column in general, that the practice of having sex with animals is tantamount to rape, she instead provides helpful advice to readers on how better to prepare themselves for this unlawful act. She even admits to being “disconcertingly” aroused by images of bestiality, as if to make the practice acceptable.

Bestiality is illegal, and at the very least Sasha mentions this (albeit in parentheses, as a mere sidebar). She states, however, that she can understand the desire to have sex with animals, summing it up as the desire for, “a partner who can’t say no.”

Rather than accepting this fact—that animals cannot issue consent—as a reason for desiring them, Sasha should have more responsibly acknowledged that this lack of consent is precisely why it is illegal to have sex with an animal!

The candor with which Sasha answered this question disturbs me. Would she provide similar support and assistance to other similar crimes? What if a writer had fantasies of ****ing a comatose woman? Would Sasha similarly find a support network geared towards such fantasies, all the while understanding the desire to have “a partner who can’t say no?” What about pedophiles?

Animals are not sex toys. They are living, breathing creatures—creatures with no ability to consent to sexual intercourse, just as a comatose individual, a severely mentally retarded person or a child has no ability to consent to sex! I really find it despicable actually that this “sex reporter” would condone such behaviour, and I can only urge her and the Mirror to re-consider the statements made in this article.

I have forwarded my complaint on to the SPCA in Montreal as well. Crimes against animals should not be treated with this kind of levity

Bestiality? What next will she push for the rape of children?
A rescue group out of the USA has a small shih tzhu male dog that was raped by some pig who thought it was cool to have sex with his dog. This dog damn near died and will never be the same. I wonder if Sasha would be the same is a situation if she should be the same. NOT Sick Sick Sick

You are so sick. I know of a dog in Washington state that was raped by some pig. This male Shih Tzhu almost died and will never be the same. A humping dog on you leg is not an assault in any manner. To most animal care takers, these defenseless animals are their children. You should be fired or better tarred and feathered and run out of town . Lunatic...

Perhaps we must look much deeper into ourselves before we dive off the cliff into a darkness we do not understand.........we, human are the only animal that has COMMITTED ever know act of degradation, every act of crulity, evey act of destruction that is know or could be devised.....we are the end of all things!

But, to take sexual advantage of a non human animal should be twice as punishable as one against a person.....a person can say no, an animal can't, a person can report to the authorties, an animal can't, a person can exert revenge, an animal does not know what has happened.

I am not the least supprised about this, because as I have afore stated, we are the worst of all animals that live, or ever have lived on this planet. Not just because we do the things we do, but because we have the ability to know when we are being cruel, mean, unreasonable, and disgusting!

Keep your comments coming to the Editor, they are getting published!!!

Bestiality philosophy bites

With regards to the appalling comparison between the sexual abuse of women and children and the sexual use of a willing canine, I'd like to invite Sasha off her high horse ["Cross-species sex conundrum," Sasha, July 14].

I do, however, understand the impulse to find the nearest high horse when defending, even quasi-defending, dog-****ing.

That there are some commonalities as far as animals and humans are concerned does not make it a matter of equating humans and animals, or that animals "unequivocally deserve the same consideration as humans," so she should save her alleged horror at the comparison.

There are commonalities in some respects, including this one: the sexual abuse of women and children, and the sexual use of animals both turn on (no pun intended) naked power, tout court. Would Sasha condone the sexual use of a willing child? How about the sexual use of a willing, but mentally disabled, adult?

So the line seems to be drawn finally - and, dare I suggest, illogically - at the human/non-human divide. I ask her to rationalize that one. Careful, she might find herself in strange philosophical company. I admit, our general use of animals is so appalling, that adding sexual use to the list might arguably be rationalized into a minor addendum. And please, don't drag out the but-my-dog-humped-my-leg justification - since when do we model our actions on animals'?

Truth is, I don't buy Sasha's jury's-out stance at all. I appreciate the desire to come off all sexual-libertarian, given the sex-columnist gig, but a little to-thine-own-self-be-true would be the really gutsy thing to do. She's right, that dastardly liberal "it feels wrong" isn't philosophically sufficient, and feelings alone do not reliable ethics make. But they shouldn't be ignored or erased either; they may actually be the first hint that something is - get ready - wrong. Philosophical sifting can help with clarification.